Science
Related: About this forumResourcing the Fairytale Country with Wind Power: A Dynamic Material Flow Analysis
Given my hostility to the wind industry, said hostility stemming from the belief that it is not only ineffective, but also unsustainable, let me state that the title for this post is identical to the title of the paper I will discuss in it, and that three of the authors of this scientific paper work in academic institutions in that offshore oil and gas drilling hellhole, Denmark, despite having names with Chinese origins.
The paper in question is this one: Resourcing the Fairytale Country with Wind Power: A Dynamic Material Flow Analysis (Liu et al, Environ. Sci. Technol. 2019, 53, 19, 11313-11322)
The introduction, indicating that it focuses on the Danish case, which I hold up as an indicator that so called "renewable energy" isn't working and won't work, particularly because Denmark is a small country jutting into the North Sea, which it has laced with wind turbines and offshore oil and gas rigs:
For example, Denmark, a pioneer in developing commercial wind power since the 1970s oil crisis, has built up an energy system of which already about 48% of electricity is from wind in 2017.(14,15) The intermittent yet abundant wind energy in Denmark will continue to play a major role for achieving the Danish governments ambition to have a 100% renewable energy system by 2050.(16,17) Understanding potential resource supply bottlenecks, reliance on foreign mineral resources, and secondary materials provision is, therefore, an important and timely topic for both the Danish wind energy sector and Denmarks energy and climate policy.
Construction and maintenance of wind power systems needs large quantities of raw materials mainly due to large-scale deployment of wind turbines and infrastructure on land or at sea.(18) In particular, two rare earth elements (neodymium and dysprosium) mainly used in permanent magnets have raised special concerns in the wind energy sector(10,19,20) due to overconcentration of rare earths supply in China,(21) sustainability of upstream mining and production processes,(22) and complexity of wind turbines supply chain.(23) Moreover, the wind energy sector also faces increasing challenges in both meeting future demands for several base metals (e.g., copper used in transmission(18)) and managing mounting end-of-life (EoL) materials (e.g., glass fiber in blades(24?26)) arising from decommissioned wind turbines.
A variety of methods have been used to translate wind energy scenarios into material demand. If the annual newly installed capacity of wind turbines is given, its associated material demand is often directly determined by material intensity per capacity unit.(5,8,9,27?30) If annual installed capacity is not given, its associated material demand can be derived from a life cycle assessment (LCA)-based inputoutput method,(31) economic model,(32) or dynamic material flow analysis (MFA) model.(6,11,20,25,30,33?36) The dynamic MFA model has been increasingly used to explore material requirements of wind energy provisioning on a global scale,(6,11,30,33,34) country scale (e.g., the US,(20) France,(25) and Germany(35)), or country scale with a regional resolution.(36) The principle of mass balance constitutes the foundation of any MFA, so that the annual newly installed capacity (inflow) and annual decommissioned capacity (outflow) of wind turbines are driven by their lifetime and the expansion and replacement of the installed wind power capacity (stock),(20,36) which has also been widely used in other anthropogenic stock studies.(37)
However, the current practice of modeling raw material requirement or secondary material availability in different wind energy technologies generally overlooks the hierarchical, layered characteristics of wind power systems. This is important because materials embedded in a technology system are usually distributed in its subsystem or subcomponents with varying compositions and recycling potentials.(38,39) In the case of wind power systems, materials employed in a wind turbine are distributed in its subcomponents such as rotor, tower, and nacelle, and their mass is largely determined by the turbine size (e.g., rotor diameter or hub height) and capacity.(13,40) These constraining factors and their leverages on the sustainability and resilience of the wind energy provisioning should be fully examined. Such information would enable wind turbine manufacturers, material suppliers, recyclers, end users, and policy makers to plan their material-related policies with a comprehensive understanding on a range of important aspects related to wind energy provisioning, such as secondary material supply, technological development, and material efficiency.
Here, we developed a component-by-component and stock-driven prospective MFA model to characterize material requirements and secondary material potentials of different Danish wind energy development scenarios. Based on two datasets that cover a range of microengineering parameters (e.g., capacity, rotor diameter, hub height, rotor weight, nacelle weight, and tower weight) of wind turbines installed in Denmark and worldwide, we established empirical regressions among these parameters in order to address the size scaling effects of wind turbines.
Some graphics:
The caption:
The caption:
The graphic refers to the Danish Master Register of Wind Turbines, which I have often appealed to in this space, at least in the E&E forum where I used to write from time to time.
The caption:
This graphic cleanly draws out the number of wind turbines that will become landfill as the wind industry, um, "expands."
The caption:
By the way, the "hydrogen" scenario has been under discussion with tons and tons and tons of wishful thinking applied to it. A pilot program on the Norwegian island of Utsira, which generated a huge internet hoopla, and was designed to power ten homes, was finally reduced to "lessons learned." The entire project generated many orders of magnitude of hype as opposed to, um, hydrogen.
Some useful text from the paper before examining the dysprosium and neodymium cases in graphics:
Figure 5 assembles the results of material requirements (inflows) and potential secondary materials supply (outflows) during 20182050 under the six scenarios. Several key observations on the trends of inflows and outflows are detailed below.
The inflows of bulk materials (concrete, steel, cast iron, nonferrous metals, polymer materials, and fiberglass) under the hydrogen, IDA, and wind scenarios will increase by 413.31, 211.91, and 328.83%, respectively. Meanwhile, the outflows of bulk materials will increase by 52.90, 49.86, and 33.15%, respectively. On the contrary, the inflows of bulk materials will increase at a slower rate under the fossil and biomass scenarios or fall slightly under the biomass+ scenario. Meanwhile, the outflows of bulk materials will decrease by 23.71, 15.98, and 37.76%, respectively.
The inflow of neodymium under the hydrogen, IDA, and wind scenarios will climb to 14.50, 12.36, and 11.15 tonne year1, respectively. Meanwhile, the outflow of neodymium will swell to 5.64, 5.71, and 4.98 tonne year1, respectively. On the contrary, the inflow of neodymium will decrease at first and increase to 3.78 and 4.28 tonne year1 under the fossil and biomass scenarios, respectively, or decrease to 2.46 tonne year1 under the biomass+ scenario; meanwhile, the outflow of neodymium will climb up and stabilize at a certain level under the fossil (3.07 tonne year1), biomass (3.34 tonne year1), and biomass+ (2.60 tonne year1) scenarios.
A similar trend is observed in the inflow and outflow of dysprosium. The inflow of dysprosium under the hydrogen, IDA, and wind scenarios will eventually climb to 1.73, 1.48, and 1.33 tonne year1, respectively. Meanwhile, the outflow of dysprosium will simultaneously grow to 0.67, 0.68, and 0.59 tonne year1, respectively. On the contrary, the inflow of dysprosium will decrease at first and increase to 0.451 and 0.51 tonne year1 under the fossil and biomass scenarios, respectively, or decrease to 0.29 tonne year1 under the biomass+ scenario; meanwhile, the outflow of dysprosium will climb up and stabilize at a certain level under the fossil (0.37 tonne year1), biomass (0.40 tonne year1), and biomass+ (0.31 tonne year1) scenarios.
The aforementioned observations indicate that, in the case of both bulk materials and critical materials, the gap between their inflow and outflow will be enlarged under the hydrogen, IDA, and wind scenarios, and it will still be enlarged but to a lesser degree under the fossil, biomass, and biomass+ scenarios.
Nowhere mentioned here is the nuclear case, since we're in fairy tale land and there's no purpose to discussing things that might actually work.
Some mass flows under the scenarios explored in this paper:
The caption:
From the text:
Of course this depends on Denmark changing the way it currently handles it's waste, which is to ship it to countries including those with lower standards of living than Danes:
And of course, there's no indication that circularity will be economically or technologically viable, but of course, it's a good idea to demand that future generations do what we are clearly incapable of doing ourselves, the old "by 2050" scam that's applicable in this paper because of the Danes claim that they will be 100% renewable "by 2050" - when most of the government administrators making this claim will be dead.
One last graphic:
The caption:
From the conclusion to the paper:
If any of this remotely troubles you, don't worry, be happy. It's not your problem; it's the problem of every living thing that will come after us.
History will not forgive us; nor should it.
Have a nice evening.
Eko
(7,281 posts)uses no metals, minerals or other things that will be or are in scarce supply. It also does not produce any waste, is cheap to build, repair and replace and there are new ones opening every month.
Thanks,
Eko.
Tikki
(14,556 posts)who bilk the tax-payers for generations and the lets fight it out
scientists who each know exactly what needs to be done with the nuclear waste
underfoot, but then DONT.
Doing the same thing over and over again, expecting a different result.
Thanks, also.
Tikki
Eko
(7,281 posts)is a shill for the nuclear industry. They would never pay someone to come on a Democratic site and promote nuclear over renewable energy with absolutely rubbish logic like this.
Eko.
defacto7
(13,485 posts)Actually his logic is exemplary and his points incredibly well documented, but I think you know that. If it's over your head that's nothing to be ashamed of, but you might try communicating by saying what you mean rather than saying what you don't mean. That's the way logic works.
Eko
(7,281 posts)That doesn't mean I don't know what I'm talking about though. Yes, solar energy uses metals, has waste, and uses some materials that are toxic to organisms, but to totally discount any of that on the nuclear side is indeed bad logic.
Thanks,
defacto7
(13,485 posts)Eko
(7,281 posts)and will be the boon of humanity? That it is way safer than waste from solar panels? Because that is what NNadir is pushing with each post. I for one have no problem with nuclear for the most part, I understand that we will need it. But to say that nuclear's shit don't stink while railing against solar and wind is beyond preposterous.
defacto7
(13,485 posts)you would know that he has repeatedly covered the subject of nuclear waste far beyond what is necessary. Repeating it in every post on the subject is redundant to me and I'm glad he doesn't. But you could browse through his journal. It was all there last I looked.
Eko
(7,281 posts)And what he is proposing is years away if not decades if ever. Its pie in the sky for nuclear. One could easily make the case for solar and wind reprocessing of spent material as well if we were to engage in what ifs. On the other hand here is some real data.
Cost of electricity by source
Eko
(7,281 posts)and the greatest scientists in the world don't. Too funny.
Eko
(7,281 posts)but NNadir has all the answers. Genius.
Eko
(7,281 posts)Land and location: One nuclear reactor plant requires about 20.5 km2 (7.9 mi2) of land to accommodate the nuclear power station itself, its exclusion zone, its enrichment plant, ore processing, and supporting infrastructure. Secondly, nuclear reactors need to be located near a massive body of coolant water, but away from dense population zones and natural disaster zones. Simply finding 15,000 locations on Earth that fulfill these requirements is extremely challenging.
Lifetime: Every nuclear power station needs to be decommissioned after 40-60 years of operation due to neutron embrittlement - cracks that develop on the metal surfaces due to radiation. If nuclear stations need to be replaced every 50 years on average, then with 15,000 nuclear power stations, one station would need to be built and another decommissioned somewhere in the world every day. Currently, it takes 6-12 years to build a nuclear station, and up to 20 years to decommission one, making this rate of replacement unrealistic.
Nuclear waste: Although nuclear technology has been around for 60 years, there is still no universally agreed mode of disposal. Its uncertain whether burying the spent fuel and the spent reactor vessels (which are also highly radioactive) may cause radioactive leakage into groundwater or the environment via geological movement.
Accident rate: To date, there have been 11 nuclear accidents at the level of a full or partial core-melt. These accidents are not the minor accidents that can be avoided with improved safety technology; they are rare events that are not even possible to model in a system as complex as a nuclear station, and arise from unforeseen pathways and unpredictable circumstances (such as the Fukushima accident). Considering that these 11 accidents occurred during a cumulated total of 14,000 reactor-years of nuclear operations, scaling up to 15,000 reactors would mean we would have a major accident somewhere in the world every month.
Proliferation: The more nuclear power stations, the greater the likelihood that materials and expertise for making nuclear weapons may proliferate. Although reactors have proliferation resistance measures, maintaining accountability for 15,000 reactor sites worldwide would be nearly impossible.
But to hear NNadir talk there are no problems at all, none at all.
Eko
(7,281 posts)instead of just insulting people. Is that too much to ask?
Thanks,
Eko.
defacto7
(13,485 posts)Eko
(7,281 posts)"If it's over your head that's nothing to be ashamed of,".
That's not an insult. Give me a break man.
defacto7
(13,485 posts)And feel free to take a swipe at me, I dont care, not that you haven't already done so. That part just doesn't matter.
Hey, be well. I'll seriously read through anything you have to offer.
Eko
(7,281 posts)Over my head. lol. How about you respond to the questions I have posed to you instead of yet again insulting me. I will wait with baited breath on an intelligent response to my questions.
defacto7
(13,485 posts)and read your comment from the mirror I can actually understand the point you're trying to make. But you're still missing a whole lot of documentation from a reputable source.
Eko
(7,281 posts)information overload and missing the forest for the trees.
Eko
(7,281 posts)unless that is your opinion. Where are the peer reviewed papers? At this point I think you are just trolling.